Download Aurifer’s reply to the Public Consultation initiated by the UAE Ministry of Finance in regard to the implementation of Corporate Income Tax in the UAE as of June 2023.

International sports bodies typically insist on obtaining widespread tax exemptions as a precondition to awarding the hosting rights to a bidder. This also applies for events organized by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). FIFA’s biggest event, the Football World Cup, will kick off later this month in Qatar.

Obtaining tax exemptions is such a sensitive topic for sports organizations that there have even been instances where the events have entirely moved to another country because a country was unable to grant the exemption. For example, the T20 Cricket World Cup was moved from India to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman last year because the Indian Government did not offer the exemptions in time.

In Qatar, even though Qatar has Free Zones, only the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) issues its own tax framework. It applies next to the general tax framework applicable in the rest of the State of Qatar. We will be looking at these frameworks in this article.

Claiming Tax Exemptions (Substantive Aspects)

For mainland Qatar, Ministerial Decision No. 9 of 2022 (Ministerial Decision) issued earlier this year on 25 August 2022 = provides details on the exemptions available to different parties, based on Government Guarantee No. (3) dated 22 February 2010 (Government Guarantee) issued by the State of Qatar to FIFA.

The most comprehensive exemption benefits are provided to FIFA itself and its affiliates (whether residents or non-residents). They are totally exempt from any taxes.

Contractors are granted a limited exemption to the extent of all taxes on import, export or transfer of goods, services and rights related to the activities of the World Cup, if the goods are imported for their use by:

• The Contractors themselves in Qatar,
• The Contractors, with the possibility of re-exporting the goods,
• The Contractors, with the possibility to donate to sports entities, charitable foundations etc.

Individuals employed or appointed by the following, are also exempt from individual taxes on payments, fringe benefits or amounts paid or received in relation to the World Cup, until 31 December 2023:

• FIFA,
• FIFA’s affiliates,
• Continental or National Football Associations,
• Event broadcasters,
• Suppliers of goods,
• Works contractors and
• Service providers.

This exemption also covers Personal Income Taxes for those individuals who enter and exit Qatar between 60 days before the first match (21 September 2022) until 60 days after the final match (16 February 2023), as long as they do not permanently reside in Qatar. This exemption may be void of much effect, given the absence of Personal Income Tax in Qatar.

An Exemption from Excise tax is to be obtained by way of refund, by providing documents like purchase invoices and bank details.

 Claiming The Exemptions - Logistical Aspects

For exemptions granted by the General Tax Authority (GTA), there is no requirement to register with the GTA. Instead, FIFA (through the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy (Supreme Committee)) prepared a list of exempted entities and individual, containing data such as the nature of contracted works, term and value of the contract, and the residency of the contracting party.

The Supreme Committee then provides the GTA the relevant documentation (Articles of Associations of companies, addresses of individuals etc.) in regard to the organisation or individuals for whom the Tax Exemption is applied.

For claiming customs duty exemptions with the General Authority of Customs (GAC), (and unlike the procedure with the GTA), the claimants need to register with the GAC.

Here too, FIFA approves the list for the Supreme Committee to provide to the GAC to entitle those entities to exemptions from customs duties and fees.  Based on this list, the GAC provides the listed entities amongst others with facilities in regard to electronic customs clearance.

In this regard, the GAC also earlier this year launched a ‘Sports Events Management System’ to facilitate customs procedures during sporting events, including the World Cup. This system provides electronic services for the clearance of goods, including easy registrations, accelerated customs procedures, and the inclusion of a special unit to facilitate approvals for incoming shipments. 

There may be some interesting questions on the applicability of the Ministerial Decision, including:

• To what extent are the activities ‘directly or indirectly’ related to the activities of the World Cup? For example, does it include online betting platforms involved in placing bets on the matches? Would it include businesses that are involved in ancillary aspects to the World Cup such as general tourism consequent to the World Cup?
• Would match fee or advertisement / sponsorship / award income earned by the footballers in relation to the World Cup also be covered under the Ministerial Decision?
• Where an event broadcaster obtains substantial advertisement income from brand sponsors during the broadcast of the match or match related activities, is such income also exempt from taxes?

QFC - Tax Exemption Regime for the World Cup 

The QFC in its Concessionary Statement of Practice (Statement) explicitly provides that a QFC entity which is a:

• FIFA subsidiary – is exempt from Corporation tax and any other charge, levy, penalty or interest related thereto;
• FIFA Host Broadcaster or a Local Organizing Committee (LoC) Entity – is exempt from Tax ‘in relation to taxable profits that are derived from activities carried on for the purposes of the World Cup’.

The major conditions for such QFC entities to claim the exemption are as follows:

• Such QFC entities have genuine economic substance in Qatar,
• The QFC entity operates in terms of the license and upon authorization of the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (QFCRA),
• An Advanced Ruling has been applied for by the QFC entity and granted by the QFC, confirming the exempt status of such QFC entity,
• The QFC entity is included in the list provided by FIFA to the QFC Tax Department,
• The sole or main purpose of such QFC entity is not avoidance of tax,
• The QFC Tax Department is satisfied that granting the exemption is not in breach of international tax principles set out in the BEPS Project minimum standards.

The potential activities that can be developed in the QFC are limited, and therefore not all types of businesses can set up in the QFC.

No VAT – No VAT Exemption

Even though Qatar is a part of the GCC VAT Agreement and committed to implement VAT in the same vein as its neighboring countries of the UAE, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Bahrain and Oman have done, it has not yet enacted any legislation.

Therefore, there is currently no need for a VAT exemption for the World Cup. Who knows, VAT may be introduced shortly after the organization of the World Cup?

Exemptions Worth the Trouble?

Granting tax exemptions for international sporting events are sometimes controversial. The public in some hosting countries do not always believe they receive a return on investments from the event. While Qatar has spent substantial amounts of money on the construction of infrastructure, the effect of the tax exemptions is rather limited, and at least for Qatar, it seems to have been worth the investment. In any case, the exemptions are a precondition, without which a country cannot bid. After the UAE had hosted the FIFA Club World Cup a number of times, Saudi Arabia will now be looking at hosting the Asian Winter Games in 2029. Those countries have given similar tax concessions to the international organizations managing the events.

For future possible events in the UAE, it will also be interesting to see how the sporting organizations and the tax authorities will deal with the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) which is to be introduced in the UAE in June 2023. The relationship may be anything between an unbridled and full-fledged exemption (if the UAE is willing to do so), or it may lead to rather interesting tax claims (like the Formula 1 case on Permanent Establishment (PE) in India a few years ago, which was decided by the courts in the tax authority’s favor). Time alone can tell.

Almost 5 years down the line for VAT in the GCC  – what’s next?

As we approach 31 December 2022, the UAE and KSA will be celebrating 5 years of applying VAT. A rollercoaster ride for many in the region, authorities, advisers and in house tax managers.

We wrote in 2017 about the challenges of drafting VAT legislation in the GCC before its implementation (https://aurifer.tax/news/the-challenges-of-drafting-tax-legislation-and-implementing-a-vat-in-the-gcc/?lid=482&p=21).

We pondered whether the GCC was potentially going to be far ahead of other jurisdictions because of the Electronic Services System (“ESS”) the GCC VAT Agreement was going to implement, foreseen in article 71 of the Agreement (https://aurifer.tax/news/future-of-vat-in-the-eu/?lid=482&p=22). The GCC however never implemented the ESS. It is therefore missing an important instrument to integrate all GCC members under a single comprehensive regional VAT framework.

After almost 5 years, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at what occurred.

6 countries to implement, only 4 did

The GCC consists of six countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar. All countries were supposed to introduce VAT in a short span of time. The UAE and KSA did so on 1 January 2018, Bahrain on 1 January 2019, and Oman on 16 April 2021. For Qatar, rumours ebb and flow on an implementation of VAT after the World Cup, but officials are tight lipped. In terms of Kuwait, a new government is not likely to put this on the table – at least, in the near future.

The intention to implement almost simultaneously was taken with the idea of avoiding arbitrage – considering the geographical proximity between the states - and potential issues with fraud.

5% was supposed to be the rate

All 4 countries kicked off with 5% VAT, as it is foreseen in the GCC VAT Agreement as well (article 25). Saudi Arabia was the first one to hike the rate to 15% on 1 July 2020. Bahrain increased to 10% on 1 January 2022.

The increases were implemented for the same reason, as the tax was implemented for in the first place, i.e. fiscal stability. The implementation came off the back of a protracted period of running deficits for many Gulf countries. There is currently a bounce back, but how long it will take is unclear, and therefore hard to predict whether it will impact fiscal policy in the short run.

Saudi Arabia, by way of its Finance Minister, had already stated in 2021 that it would consider revising the VAT rate downwards after the pandemic. If it will happen, it will happen soon.

It’s safe to say the other GCC countries could still revise the rate upwards or downwards, depending on their specific fiscal situation.

Interestingly, the increase of the VAT rate to 15% also spawned a new tax in KSA, the Real Estate Transfer Tax (“RETT”). This new tax in KSA aimed to solve the issue of unregistered sellers, and reduce the taxes on real estate sales. Since its introduction, the RETT legislation has been amended multiple times.

The GCC countries were supposed to have numerical VAT numbers, Oman didn’t follow

In the framework of the GCC, the idea was floated to have numbers as VAT numbers. Hence, the UAE has a 1 before the number, Bahrain a 2 and Saudi a 3. Oman however choose letters and put “OM” before the number.

In the EU, VAT numbers are also composed of letters and numbers. Two letters make up the first two symbols of the VAT number and refer to a country, e.g. “LU” refers to Luxembourg (see https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/vat-identification-numbers_en).

Zero rates for services are perceived a complication

5 years in, the application to zero-rate VAT on exported services, i.e., services provided to recipients outside of the GCC, remains complicated for businesses to apply and inconsistent between the GCC member states.

Although the GCC VAT Agreement for place of supply purposes looks like the EU VAT directive, from the outset, each GCC member state chose different approaches towards the place of supply of services.

B2B services were not simply located in the country of the recipient, as they are in the EU since 2010, and as is recommended by the OECD in its VAT/GST Guidelines on B2B services.

Based on an interpretation of article 34(1)(c) of the GCC VAT Agreement as laying down the rule, and including a benefit test, GCC countries have embarked on a conservative and selective interpretation of the zero rate on supplies made from a GCC country to abroad.

That conservative interpretation is not necessarily mirrored when those services are received, as there is no benefit test required there.

The rule is therefore applied unequal, and as shown by both the UAE and KSA, they felt the rule required amendments to the provision itself (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uae-considerably-restricts-application-vat-zero-rate-services-vanhee/). Those amendments, and ensuing clarifications have not necessarily led to more clarity.

Unfortunately, Bahrain and Oman went down the same road. A too conservative view of zero rates, can put a strain on foreign investments, as it is not easy to obtain refunds for foreign businesses (as amongst others the Saudi example shows).

As a matter of fact, disputes are common among businesses in the GCC over the VAT treatment of cross-border services due to the difference in the domestic legislation between the GCC member states and in the absence of the ESS.

Divergent policy options

The GCC VAT Framework Agreement allowed for broad policy options in the education sector, health sector, real estate sector and local transport sector. In addition, for the oil & gas sector zero rates were allowed to be implemented as well, and the financial sector could benefit from a deviating regime as well. Depending on the individual requirements and policies, the GCC Member States have implemented substantially different regimes.

None of the GCC countries so far have amended those policies in the aforementioned sectors. The UAE did move from a system where the B2B sales of diamonds was taxed, to a system where it is subject to a reverse charge as from 1 June 2018.

Tax Authority approaches

So far, in the region ZATCA has shown the most grit in terms of audits, and has lengths ahead of the other countries in terms of tax audits and disputes. KSA also had the best equipped tax authority in 2018 when VAT was introduced, although it did have to go through an organizational revamp. The UAE comes second, which is remarkable for a tax authority which only kicked off in 2017. It has been very much a rules and process based organization, which has a lot of positive effects, such as tax payers feeling treated in the same way. UAE auditors now often also give the opportunity to tax payers to voluntarily disclose their liabilities before closing the audit, which is a novely approach in the region.

The Bahraini and Omani tax authority, have been taking a more relaxed approach towards audits and disputes.

Having said the above, it's all not all 'sticks' with the tax authorities. We have also observed in this 5 years, how the tax authorities, especially in KSA and the UAE, played a their role to alleviate tax from being a burden to businesses and encouraging tax compliance - a fairly new culture of this scale. The amnesty programmes, first introduced by the KSA in 2020 and again, recently paved the way on encouraging tax compliance for businesses. The UAE also introduced their amnesty programme this year with the same intention. Perhaps, this could be a temporary solution to gear the economy back on track post pandemic. On whether it will be the norm, is yet to be seen in the next coming years.

What the future will bring

An old-fashioned system was put in place, yet one that has proven its use in revenue collection. It also worked, given the substantial revenues gained from VAT.

The GCC did not opted to immediately adopt more modern, electronic systems as these exist elsewhere (e.g. since a long time in Brazil, but also China).  

However, it was identified that E-invoicing was the way to go in the medium run. This is again trodding down a proven path. As often in the GCC, the UAE and KSA show the way. KSA has made E-invoicing mandatory. The UAE and Bahrain have already suggested they will do the same very soon.

No GCC countries have yet announced they will adopt real-time reporting. KSA may be the closest to a potential adoption, given that once phase 2 enters into force in 2023, ZATCA, the KSA tax authority will have access to substantial transactional data. It will allow it to pre-fill the VAT return, and potentially even in real time calculate the VAT.

We'll see what the future will bring, and for sure in another five years matters will have evolved again drastically, given the pace of changes in the region.

Safe to say that the next 5 years will be equally exciting.

The Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently announced that the draft Corporate Tax (CT) law is going to be released soon, and likely within the month of September. This is impactful news for businesses in the UAE. Many businesses are already in the process of taking steps to plan their affairs in such a way that their operations are tax compliant and tax optimized at the same time.

The UAE’s international position will change after the implementation of corporate tax. Some jurisdictions may no longer view the UAE as a tax haven (although the Free Zone businesses may still benefit from a 0% rate). Other tax authorities may therefore change their perspective on the UAE and be more inclined to grant the benefits under the double tax treaties.

Businesses on the other hand, will no longer view the UAE as a conduit jurisdiction with an extensive treaty network, through which they can avail tax treaty benefits. While the 9% headline rate is still comparatively low, the implementation of CT may also discourage taxpayers seeking out the UAE solely for tax purposes.

A recurring point of dispute between the tax authority and businesses in almost every country having a CT regime has been drawing the line between tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Once the UAE CT regime settles, the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) of the UAE may indeed pay more attention towards countering tax avoidance and tax evasion arrangements or transactions.

In this article, we will revisit the evergreen discussion of tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion, with an emphasis on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). To begin, let us examine the meaning of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion and the differences between the two terms.

Tax avoidance has traditionally been considered as lawful. It can be described as planning for the purposes of minimizing the tax burden within the legal framework. Tax evasion on the other hand is considered unlawful, and often requires an intentional and a potential fraudulent element.

In the GCC, tax authorities resort rather quickly to suggesting a taxpayer has committed tax evasion, even when the situation concerns simple non-compliance.

While not considered unlawful, tax avoidance has been considered harmful. This is why countries around the world, including the GCC Member States, are implementing domestic rules to counter aggressive or harmful tax planning in line with international standards.

The OECD tried to address this point by way of the ‘Main Purpose Test’ (MPT). The MPT was included in the OECD’s Model Tax Convention in its 2003 version. We are paraphrasing, but the principle stated that benefits under a double tax treaty should not be granted where the main purpose of setting up a structure was for tax purposes as the tax benefits resulting from that structure would go counter the object and purpose of those treaties.

Another common mechanism proposed in tax treaties to avoid the improper use of tax treaties, is the ‘Beneficial Ownership’ (BO) requirement. It mainly applies to passive income (e.g., dividends, interests, and royalties). The BO concept provides that where an item of income is paid to a resident of a Contracting State acting in the capacity of an agent or a nominee, it would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the source state to grant an exemption or relief, merely because the direct recipient is a resident of the other Contracting State. In such a case, the direct recipient, on account of being merely an agent, nominee, conduit, fiduciary, or administrator, would not be able to obtain the benefits of the treaty. This is especially evident if such recipient is legally or contractually bound to pass on the payment received to another person. BO disputes often end up before the courts, because the burden of proof for the taxpayer is not easily met. 

The 2008 Financial Crisis put the discussion on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning firmly on governments’ agenda. Following the Financial Crisis, public opinion shifted towards ensuring that big corporations pay their fair share of taxes and pressured countries to implement rules to discourage such behaviors.

As a result, the OECD established what is known as the ‘Inclusive Framework’ (IF), which was open to both OECD and non-OECD members (currently at 141 members) to engage in discussions and create rules for countering Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). It is formally known as the OECD/G20 BEPS Project (BEPS Project 1.0) which identified 15 Action Points in 2015.

Out of the 15 Action Points, one of the most important action plans was BEPS Action 6 - Prevention of Tax Treaty Abuse, which also formed one of the four minimum standards. BEPS Action 6 addresses treaty shopping activities that would be viewed as avoidance.

BEPS Action 6 requires IF members, amongst others, to include an express statement in their treaties that their common intention is to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance, including through treaty shopping arrangements.

Anti-avoidance rules aim amongst others to avoid conduit arrangements. For example, State A has a domestic withholding tax rate for dividends of 25%. State A and State B have negotiated a tax treaty where the source withholding tax rate for dividends is reduced to 5%. A resident in State B receives dividends from State A and claims the reduced treaty rate of 5% source withholding.

However, the resident in State B has an obligation to redistribute the dividend income to a resident in State C. State A and State C do not have a tax treaty in place. It can be observed that there is no BO in State B due to its obligation to pass the payment onto another party. Clearly, such payment is not made for the benefit of any resident in State B nor for enhancing economic cooperation between States A and B. Instead, the benefit would be received by the resident of a third State (i.e., State C). This clearly shows that the treaty has been misused or abused by the resident of State B, against the intention, object, and purpose of the treaty between States A and B.  

To combat misuse of the treaty like the case described above, BEPS Action 6 seeks IF members to implement a ‘minimum standard’ in all its treaties. The minimum standard can be either of the following:

1. The combined approach of a Limitation of Benefits (LOB) and a Principal Purpose Test (PPT) rule,
2. The PPT rule alone, or
3. The LOB rule supplemented by a mechanism that would deal with conduit financing arrangements not already dealt with in tax treaties.

As a consequence, many IF members’ tax treaties have been updated to include, at least, a PPT rule. This is done by way of signing and ratifying the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) as it allows IF members to update multiple bilateral tax treaties simultaneously. The PPT rule looks a lot like the MPT. True to its name, if one of the principal purposes of an arrangement is to obtain a benefit, the PPT rule may be triggered. This clear intention has also been expressed in the wordings of the preamble incorporated in the OECD Model Tax Convention 2017.

Due to the lack of case law, the impact of the PPT rule is rather uncertain for now and the interpretation of the PPT rule may vary across jurisdictions. It may be possible that the cases that were successfully tested before the courts of law earlier may not survive the PPT rule if they were to be presented before the courts today, provided that the PPT rule was applicable at the time of the transaction or arrangement.

What is certain is that taxpayers ought to be very careful in tax planning so that the structures do not fall foul of the PPT rule. When deciding on the country to make an investment in or the structure of a transaction or arrangement, taxpayers ought to clearly record the non-tax reasons (main/principal purposes) for selecting a certain jurisdiction over another. Evidence can be maintained through internal emails, memos, and minutes outlining the reasons for selecting a country. For example:

• A country is preferred due to a favourable corporate law regime.
• A country is preferred due to the presence of multilingual or highly qualified employees.
• A country is preferred as it is politically and socially stable.
• A country is preferred as it has a strong banking infrastructure where it is easy to obtain credit.

Despite the above safeguards, if the tax authority does reasonably conclude that one of the principal purposes of invoking the treaty was to obtain a tax benefit, the taxpayer ought to ensure that it can establish (i.e., prove) that the benefit obtained was indeed within the object and purpose of the tax treaty.

Finally, as mentioned before, public opinion against tax avoidance is stronger than ever. The relevance of the PPT to future transactions cannot be overstated. Arrangements that may have been successfully litigated before the courts of law until a few years ago, may not be as successful from now on. Therefore, taxpayers may find advance rulings to be attractive as it is important to avoid future issues.

It will be interesting to see how the UAE and the other GCC countries will approach such abusive arrangements and its possible disputes. In the meantime, it is apparent that either through the MLI or through bilateral double tax treaties, the PPT continues to be important. It is vital to consider such anti-avoidance provisions now in order to create future proof structures.

Download Aurifer’s reply to the Public Consultation initiated by the UAE Ministry of Finance in regard to the implementation of Corporate Income Tax in the UAE as of June 2023.

International sports bodies typically insist on obtaining widespread tax exemptions as a precondition to awarding the hosting rights to a bidder. This also applies for events organized by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). FIFA’s biggest event, the Football World Cup, will kick off later this month in Qatar.

Obtaining tax exemptions is such a sensitive topic for sports organizations that there have even been instances where the events have entirely moved to another country because a country was unable to grant the exemption. For example, the T20 Cricket World Cup was moved from India to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman last year because the Indian Government did not offer the exemptions in time.

In Qatar, even though Qatar has Free Zones, only the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) issues its own tax framework. It applies next to the general tax framework applicable in the rest of the State of Qatar. We will be looking at these frameworks in this article.

Claiming Tax Exemptions (Substantive Aspects)

For mainland Qatar, Ministerial Decision No. 9 of 2022 (Ministerial Decision) issued earlier this year on 25 August 2022 = provides details on the exemptions available to different parties, based on Government Guarantee No. (3) dated 22 February 2010 (Government Guarantee) issued by the State of Qatar to FIFA.

The most comprehensive exemption benefits are provided to FIFA itself and its affiliates (whether residents or non-residents). They are totally exempt from any taxes.

Contractors are granted a limited exemption to the extent of all taxes on import, export or transfer of goods, services and rights related to the activities of the World Cup, if the goods are imported for their use by:

• The Contractors themselves in Qatar,
• The Contractors, with the possibility of re-exporting the goods,
• The Contractors, with the possibility to donate to sports entities, charitable foundations etc.

Individuals employed or appointed by the following, are also exempt from individual taxes on payments, fringe benefits or amounts paid or received in relation to the World Cup, until 31 December 2023:

• FIFA,
• FIFA’s affiliates,
• Continental or National Football Associations,
• Event broadcasters,
• Suppliers of goods,
• Works contractors and
• Service providers.

This exemption also covers Personal Income Taxes for those individuals who enter and exit Qatar between 60 days before the first match (21 September 2022) until 60 days after the final match (16 February 2023), as long as they do not permanently reside in Qatar. This exemption may be void of much effect, given the absence of Personal Income Tax in Qatar.

An Exemption from Excise tax is to be obtained by way of refund, by providing documents like purchase invoices and bank details.

 Claiming The Exemptions - Logistical Aspects

For exemptions granted by the General Tax Authority (GTA), there is no requirement to register with the GTA. Instead, FIFA (through the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy (Supreme Committee)) prepared a list of exempted entities and individual, containing data such as the nature of contracted works, term and value of the contract, and the residency of the contracting party.

The Supreme Committee then provides the GTA the relevant documentation (Articles of Associations of companies, addresses of individuals etc.) in regard to the organisation or individuals for whom the Tax Exemption is applied.

For claiming customs duty exemptions with the General Authority of Customs (GAC), (and unlike the procedure with the GTA), the claimants need to register with the GAC.

Here too, FIFA approves the list for the Supreme Committee to provide to the GAC to entitle those entities to exemptions from customs duties and fees.  Based on this list, the GAC provides the listed entities amongst others with facilities in regard to electronic customs clearance.

In this regard, the GAC also earlier this year launched a ‘Sports Events Management System’ to facilitate customs procedures during sporting events, including the World Cup. This system provides electronic services for the clearance of goods, including easy registrations, accelerated customs procedures, and the inclusion of a special unit to facilitate approvals for incoming shipments. 

There may be some interesting questions on the applicability of the Ministerial Decision, including:

• To what extent are the activities ‘directly or indirectly’ related to the activities of the World Cup? For example, does it include online betting platforms involved in placing bets on the matches? Would it include businesses that are involved in ancillary aspects to the World Cup such as general tourism consequent to the World Cup?
• Would match fee or advertisement / sponsorship / award income earned by the footballers in relation to the World Cup also be covered under the Ministerial Decision?
• Where an event broadcaster obtains substantial advertisement income from brand sponsors during the broadcast of the match or match related activities, is such income also exempt from taxes?

QFC - Tax Exemption Regime for the World Cup 

The QFC in its Concessionary Statement of Practice (Statement) explicitly provides that a QFC entity which is a:

• FIFA subsidiary – is exempt from Corporation tax and any other charge, levy, penalty or interest related thereto;
• FIFA Host Broadcaster or a Local Organizing Committee (LoC) Entity – is exempt from Tax ‘in relation to taxable profits that are derived from activities carried on for the purposes of the World Cup’.

The major conditions for such QFC entities to claim the exemption are as follows:

• Such QFC entities have genuine economic substance in Qatar,
• The QFC entity operates in terms of the license and upon authorization of the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (QFCRA),
• An Advanced Ruling has been applied for by the QFC entity and granted by the QFC, confirming the exempt status of such QFC entity,
• The QFC entity is included in the list provided by FIFA to the QFC Tax Department,
• The sole or main purpose of such QFC entity is not avoidance of tax,
• The QFC Tax Department is satisfied that granting the exemption is not in breach of international tax principles set out in the BEPS Project minimum standards.

The potential activities that can be developed in the QFC are limited, and therefore not all types of businesses can set up in the QFC.

No VAT – No VAT Exemption

Even though Qatar is a part of the GCC VAT Agreement and committed to implement VAT in the same vein as its neighboring countries of the UAE, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Bahrain and Oman have done, it has not yet enacted any legislation.

Therefore, there is currently no need for a VAT exemption for the World Cup. Who knows, VAT may be introduced shortly after the organization of the World Cup?

Exemptions Worth the Trouble?

Granting tax exemptions for international sporting events are sometimes controversial. The public in some hosting countries do not always believe they receive a return on investments from the event. While Qatar has spent substantial amounts of money on the construction of infrastructure, the effect of the tax exemptions is rather limited, and at least for Qatar, it seems to have been worth the investment. In any case, the exemptions are a precondition, without which a country cannot bid. After the UAE had hosted the FIFA Club World Cup a number of times, Saudi Arabia will now be looking at hosting the Asian Winter Games in 2029. Those countries have given similar tax concessions to the international organizations managing the events.

For future possible events in the UAE, it will also be interesting to see how the sporting organizations and the tax authorities will deal with the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) which is to be introduced in the UAE in June 2023. The relationship may be anything between an unbridled and full-fledged exemption (if the UAE is willing to do so), or it may lead to rather interesting tax claims (like the Formula 1 case on Permanent Establishment (PE) in India a few years ago, which was decided by the courts in the tax authority’s favor). Time alone can tell.

Almost 5 years down the line for VAT in the GCC  – what’s next?

As we approach 31 December 2022, the UAE and KSA will be celebrating 5 years of applying VAT. A rollercoaster ride for many in the region, authorities, advisers and in house tax managers.

We wrote in 2017 about the challenges of drafting VAT legislation in the GCC before its implementation (https://aurifer.tax/news/the-challenges-of-drafting-tax-legislation-and-implementing-a-vat-in-the-gcc/?lid=482&p=21).

We pondered whether the GCC was potentially going to be far ahead of other jurisdictions because of the Electronic Services System (“ESS”) the GCC VAT Agreement was going to implement, foreseen in article 71 of the Agreement (https://aurifer.tax/news/future-of-vat-in-the-eu/?lid=482&p=22). The GCC however never implemented the ESS. It is therefore missing an important instrument to integrate all GCC members under a single comprehensive regional VAT framework.

After almost 5 years, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at what occurred.

6 countries to implement, only 4 did

The GCC consists of six countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar. All countries were supposed to introduce VAT in a short span of time. The UAE and KSA did so on 1 January 2018, Bahrain on 1 January 2019, and Oman on 16 April 2021. For Qatar, rumours ebb and flow on an implementation of VAT after the World Cup, but officials are tight lipped. In terms of Kuwait, a new government is not likely to put this on the table – at least, in the near future.

The intention to implement almost simultaneously was taken with the idea of avoiding arbitrage – considering the geographical proximity between the states - and potential issues with fraud.

5% was supposed to be the rate

All 4 countries kicked off with 5% VAT, as it is foreseen in the GCC VAT Agreement as well (article 25). Saudi Arabia was the first one to hike the rate to 15% on 1 July 2020. Bahrain increased to 10% on 1 January 2022.

The increases were implemented for the same reason, as the tax was implemented for in the first place, i.e. fiscal stability. The implementation came off the back of a protracted period of running deficits for many Gulf countries. There is currently a bounce back, but how long it will take is unclear, and therefore hard to predict whether it will impact fiscal policy in the short run.

Saudi Arabia, by way of its Finance Minister, had already stated in 2021 that it would consider revising the VAT rate downwards after the pandemic. If it will happen, it will happen soon.

It’s safe to say the other GCC countries could still revise the rate upwards or downwards, depending on their specific fiscal situation.

Interestingly, the increase of the VAT rate to 15% also spawned a new tax in KSA, the Real Estate Transfer Tax (“RETT”). This new tax in KSA aimed to solve the issue of unregistered sellers, and reduce the taxes on real estate sales. Since its introduction, the RETT legislation has been amended multiple times.

The GCC countries were supposed to have numerical VAT numbers, Oman didn’t follow

In the framework of the GCC, the idea was floated to have numbers as VAT numbers. Hence, the UAE has a 1 before the number, Bahrain a 2 and Saudi a 3. Oman however choose letters and put “OM” before the number.

In the EU, VAT numbers are also composed of letters and numbers. Two letters make up the first two symbols of the VAT number and refer to a country, e.g. “LU” refers to Luxembourg (see https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/vat-identification-numbers_en).

Zero rates for services are perceived a complication

5 years in, the application to zero-rate VAT on exported services, i.e., services provided to recipients outside of the GCC, remains complicated for businesses to apply and inconsistent between the GCC member states.

Although the GCC VAT Agreement for place of supply purposes looks like the EU VAT directive, from the outset, each GCC member state chose different approaches towards the place of supply of services.

B2B services were not simply located in the country of the recipient, as they are in the EU since 2010, and as is recommended by the OECD in its VAT/GST Guidelines on B2B services.

Based on an interpretation of article 34(1)(c) of the GCC VAT Agreement as laying down the rule, and including a benefit test, GCC countries have embarked on a conservative and selective interpretation of the zero rate on supplies made from a GCC country to abroad.

That conservative interpretation is not necessarily mirrored when those services are received, as there is no benefit test required there.

The rule is therefore applied unequal, and as shown by both the UAE and KSA, they felt the rule required amendments to the provision itself (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uae-considerably-restricts-application-vat-zero-rate-services-vanhee/). Those amendments, and ensuing clarifications have not necessarily led to more clarity.

Unfortunately, Bahrain and Oman went down the same road. A too conservative view of zero rates, can put a strain on foreign investments, as it is not easy to obtain refunds for foreign businesses (as amongst others the Saudi example shows).

As a matter of fact, disputes are common among businesses in the GCC over the VAT treatment of cross-border services due to the difference in the domestic legislation between the GCC member states and in the absence of the ESS.

Divergent policy options

The GCC VAT Framework Agreement allowed for broad policy options in the education sector, health sector, real estate sector and local transport sector. In addition, for the oil & gas sector zero rates were allowed to be implemented as well, and the financial sector could benefit from a deviating regime as well. Depending on the individual requirements and policies, the GCC Member States have implemented substantially different regimes.

None of the GCC countries so far have amended those policies in the aforementioned sectors. The UAE did move from a system where the B2B sales of diamonds was taxed, to a system where it is subject to a reverse charge as from 1 June 2018.

Tax Authority approaches

So far, in the region ZATCA has shown the most grit in terms of audits, and has lengths ahead of the other countries in terms of tax audits and disputes. KSA also had the best equipped tax authority in 2018 when VAT was introduced, although it did have to go through an organizational revamp. The UAE comes second, which is remarkable for a tax authority which only kicked off in 2017. It has been very much a rules and process based organization, which has a lot of positive effects, such as tax payers feeling treated in the same way. UAE auditors now often also give the opportunity to tax payers to voluntarily disclose their liabilities before closing the audit, which is a novely approach in the region.

The Bahraini and Omani tax authority, have been taking a more relaxed approach towards audits and disputes.

Having said the above, it's all not all 'sticks' with the tax authorities. We have also observed in this 5 years, how the tax authorities, especially in KSA and the UAE, played a their role to alleviate tax from being a burden to businesses and encouraging tax compliance - a fairly new culture of this scale. The amnesty programmes, first introduced by the KSA in 2020 and again, recently paved the way on encouraging tax compliance for businesses. The UAE also introduced their amnesty programme this year with the same intention. Perhaps, this could be a temporary solution to gear the economy back on track post pandemic. On whether it will be the norm, is yet to be seen in the next coming years.

What the future will bring

An old-fashioned system was put in place, yet one that has proven its use in revenue collection. It also worked, given the substantial revenues gained from VAT.

The GCC did not opted to immediately adopt more modern, electronic systems as these exist elsewhere (e.g. since a long time in Brazil, but also China).  

However, it was identified that E-invoicing was the way to go in the medium run. This is again trodding down a proven path. As often in the GCC, the UAE and KSA show the way. KSA has made E-invoicing mandatory. The UAE and Bahrain have already suggested they will do the same very soon.

No GCC countries have yet announced they will adopt real-time reporting. KSA may be the closest to a potential adoption, given that once phase 2 enters into force in 2023, ZATCA, the KSA tax authority will have access to substantial transactional data. It will allow it to pre-fill the VAT return, and potentially even in real time calculate the VAT.

We'll see what the future will bring, and for sure in another five years matters will have evolved again drastically, given the pace of changes in the region.

Safe to say that the next 5 years will be equally exciting.

The Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently announced that the draft Corporate Tax (CT) law is going to be released soon, and likely within the month of September. This is impactful news for businesses in the UAE. Many businesses are already in the process of taking steps to plan their affairs in such a way that their operations are tax compliant and tax optimized at the same time.

The UAE’s international position will change after the implementation of corporate tax. Some jurisdictions may no longer view the UAE as a tax haven (although the Free Zone businesses may still benefit from a 0% rate). Other tax authorities may therefore change their perspective on the UAE and be more inclined to grant the benefits under the double tax treaties.

Businesses on the other hand, will no longer view the UAE as a conduit jurisdiction with an extensive treaty network, through which they can avail tax treaty benefits. While the 9% headline rate is still comparatively low, the implementation of CT may also discourage taxpayers seeking out the UAE solely for tax purposes.

A recurring point of dispute between the tax authority and businesses in almost every country having a CT regime has been drawing the line between tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Once the UAE CT regime settles, the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) of the UAE may indeed pay more attention towards countering tax avoidance and tax evasion arrangements or transactions.

In this article, we will revisit the evergreen discussion of tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion, with an emphasis on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). To begin, let us examine the meaning of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion and the differences between the two terms.

Tax avoidance has traditionally been considered as lawful. It can be described as planning for the purposes of minimizing the tax burden within the legal framework. Tax evasion on the other hand is considered unlawful, and often requires an intentional and a potential fraudulent element.

In the GCC, tax authorities resort rather quickly to suggesting a taxpayer has committed tax evasion, even when the situation concerns simple non-compliance.

While not considered unlawful, tax avoidance has been considered harmful. This is why countries around the world, including the GCC Member States, are implementing domestic rules to counter aggressive or harmful tax planning in line with international standards.

The OECD tried to address this point by way of the ‘Main Purpose Test’ (MPT). The MPT was included in the OECD’s Model Tax Convention in its 2003 version. We are paraphrasing, but the principle stated that benefits under a double tax treaty should not be granted where the main purpose of setting up a structure was for tax purposes as the tax benefits resulting from that structure would go counter the object and purpose of those treaties.

Another common mechanism proposed in tax treaties to avoid the improper use of tax treaties, is the ‘Beneficial Ownership’ (BO) requirement. It mainly applies to passive income (e.g., dividends, interests, and royalties). The BO concept provides that where an item of income is paid to a resident of a Contracting State acting in the capacity of an agent or a nominee, it would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the source state to grant an exemption or relief, merely because the direct recipient is a resident of the other Contracting State. In such a case, the direct recipient, on account of being merely an agent, nominee, conduit, fiduciary, or administrator, would not be able to obtain the benefits of the treaty. This is especially evident if such recipient is legally or contractually bound to pass on the payment received to another person. BO disputes often end up before the courts, because the burden of proof for the taxpayer is not easily met. 

The 2008 Financial Crisis put the discussion on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning firmly on governments’ agenda. Following the Financial Crisis, public opinion shifted towards ensuring that big corporations pay their fair share of taxes and pressured countries to implement rules to discourage such behaviors.

As a result, the OECD established what is known as the ‘Inclusive Framework’ (IF), which was open to both OECD and non-OECD members (currently at 141 members) to engage in discussions and create rules for countering Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). It is formally known as the OECD/G20 BEPS Project (BEPS Project 1.0) which identified 15 Action Points in 2015.

Out of the 15 Action Points, one of the most important action plans was BEPS Action 6 - Prevention of Tax Treaty Abuse, which also formed one of the four minimum standards. BEPS Action 6 addresses treaty shopping activities that would be viewed as avoidance.

BEPS Action 6 requires IF members, amongst others, to include an express statement in their treaties that their common intention is to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance, including through treaty shopping arrangements.

Anti-avoidance rules aim amongst others to avoid conduit arrangements. For example, State A has a domestic withholding tax rate for dividends of 25%. State A and State B have negotiated a tax treaty where the source withholding tax rate for dividends is reduced to 5%. A resident in State B receives dividends from State A and claims the reduced treaty rate of 5% source withholding.

However, the resident in State B has an obligation to redistribute the dividend income to a resident in State C. State A and State C do not have a tax treaty in place. It can be observed that there is no BO in State B due to its obligation to pass the payment onto another party. Clearly, such payment is not made for the benefit of any resident in State B nor for enhancing economic cooperation between States A and B. Instead, the benefit would be received by the resident of a third State (i.e., State C). This clearly shows that the treaty has been misused or abused by the resident of State B, against the intention, object, and purpose of the treaty between States A and B.  

To combat misuse of the treaty like the case described above, BEPS Action 6 seeks IF members to implement a ‘minimum standard’ in all its treaties. The minimum standard can be either of the following:

1. The combined approach of a Limitation of Benefits (LOB) and a Principal Purpose Test (PPT) rule,
2. The PPT rule alone, or
3. The LOB rule supplemented by a mechanism that would deal with conduit financing arrangements not already dealt with in tax treaties.

As a consequence, many IF members’ tax treaties have been updated to include, at least, a PPT rule. This is done by way of signing and ratifying the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) as it allows IF members to update multiple bilateral tax treaties simultaneously. The PPT rule looks a lot like the MPT. True to its name, if one of the principal purposes of an arrangement is to obtain a benefit, the PPT rule may be triggered. This clear intention has also been expressed in the wordings of the preamble incorporated in the OECD Model Tax Convention 2017.

Due to the lack of case law, the impact of the PPT rule is rather uncertain for now and the interpretation of the PPT rule may vary across jurisdictions. It may be possible that the cases that were successfully tested before the courts of law earlier may not survive the PPT rule if they were to be presented before the courts today, provided that the PPT rule was applicable at the time of the transaction or arrangement.

What is certain is that taxpayers ought to be very careful in tax planning so that the structures do not fall foul of the PPT rule. When deciding on the country to make an investment in or the structure of a transaction or arrangement, taxpayers ought to clearly record the non-tax reasons (main/principal purposes) for selecting a certain jurisdiction over another. Evidence can be maintained through internal emails, memos, and minutes outlining the reasons for selecting a country. For example:

• A country is preferred due to a favourable corporate law regime.
• A country is preferred due to the presence of multilingual or highly qualified employees.
• A country is preferred as it is politically and socially stable.
• A country is preferred as it has a strong banking infrastructure where it is easy to obtain credit.

Despite the above safeguards, if the tax authority does reasonably conclude that one of the principal purposes of invoking the treaty was to obtain a tax benefit, the taxpayer ought to ensure that it can establish (i.e., prove) that the benefit obtained was indeed within the object and purpose of the tax treaty.

Finally, as mentioned before, public opinion against tax avoidance is stronger than ever. The relevance of the PPT to future transactions cannot be overstated. Arrangements that may have been successfully litigated before the courts of law until a few years ago, may not be as successful from now on. Therefore, taxpayers may find advance rulings to be attractive as it is important to avoid future issues.

It will be interesting to see how the UAE and the other GCC countries will approach such abusive arrangements and its possible disputes. In the meantime, it is apparent that either through the MLI or through bilateral double tax treaties, the PPT continues to be important. It is vital to consider such anti-avoidance provisions now in order to create future proof structures.

Download Aurifer’s reply to the Public Consultation initiated by the UAE Ministry of Finance in regard to the implementation of Corporate Income Tax in the UAE as of June 2023.

International sports bodies typically insist on obtaining widespread tax exemptions as a precondition to awarding the hosting rights to a bidder. This also applies for events organized by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). FIFA’s biggest event, the Football World Cup, will kick off later this month in Qatar.

Obtaining tax exemptions is such a sensitive topic for sports organizations that there have even been instances where the events have entirely moved to another country because a country was unable to grant the exemption. For example, the T20 Cricket World Cup was moved from India to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman last year because the Indian Government did not offer the exemptions in time.

In Qatar, even though Qatar has Free Zones, only the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) issues its own tax framework. It applies next to the general tax framework applicable in the rest of the State of Qatar. We will be looking at these frameworks in this article.

Claiming Tax Exemptions (Substantive Aspects)

For mainland Qatar, Ministerial Decision No. 9 of 2022 (Ministerial Decision) issued earlier this year on 25 August 2022 = provides details on the exemptions available to different parties, based on Government Guarantee No. (3) dated 22 February 2010 (Government Guarantee) issued by the State of Qatar to FIFA.

The most comprehensive exemption benefits are provided to FIFA itself and its affiliates (whether residents or non-residents). They are totally exempt from any taxes.

Contractors are granted a limited exemption to the extent of all taxes on import, export or transfer of goods, services and rights related to the activities of the World Cup, if the goods are imported for their use by:

• The Contractors themselves in Qatar,
• The Contractors, with the possibility of re-exporting the goods,
• The Contractors, with the possibility to donate to sports entities, charitable foundations etc.

Individuals employed or appointed by the following, are also exempt from individual taxes on payments, fringe benefits or amounts paid or received in relation to the World Cup, until 31 December 2023:

• FIFA,
• FIFA’s affiliates,
• Continental or National Football Associations,
• Event broadcasters,
• Suppliers of goods,
• Works contractors and
• Service providers.

This exemption also covers Personal Income Taxes for those individuals who enter and exit Qatar between 60 days before the first match (21 September 2022) until 60 days after the final match (16 February 2023), as long as they do not permanently reside in Qatar. This exemption may be void of much effect, given the absence of Personal Income Tax in Qatar.

An Exemption from Excise tax is to be obtained by way of refund, by providing documents like purchase invoices and bank details.

 Claiming The Exemptions - Logistical Aspects

For exemptions granted by the General Tax Authority (GTA), there is no requirement to register with the GTA. Instead, FIFA (through the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy (Supreme Committee)) prepared a list of exempted entities and individual, containing data such as the nature of contracted works, term and value of the contract, and the residency of the contracting party.

The Supreme Committee then provides the GTA the relevant documentation (Articles of Associations of companies, addresses of individuals etc.) in regard to the organisation or individuals for whom the Tax Exemption is applied.

For claiming customs duty exemptions with the General Authority of Customs (GAC), (and unlike the procedure with the GTA), the claimants need to register with the GAC.

Here too, FIFA approves the list for the Supreme Committee to provide to the GAC to entitle those entities to exemptions from customs duties and fees.  Based on this list, the GAC provides the listed entities amongst others with facilities in regard to electronic customs clearance.

In this regard, the GAC also earlier this year launched a ‘Sports Events Management System’ to facilitate customs procedures during sporting events, including the World Cup. This system provides electronic services for the clearance of goods, including easy registrations, accelerated customs procedures, and the inclusion of a special unit to facilitate approvals for incoming shipments. 

There may be some interesting questions on the applicability of the Ministerial Decision, including:

• To what extent are the activities ‘directly or indirectly’ related to the activities of the World Cup? For example, does it include online betting platforms involved in placing bets on the matches? Would it include businesses that are involved in ancillary aspects to the World Cup such as general tourism consequent to the World Cup?
• Would match fee or advertisement / sponsorship / award income earned by the footballers in relation to the World Cup also be covered under the Ministerial Decision?
• Where an event broadcaster obtains substantial advertisement income from brand sponsors during the broadcast of the match or match related activities, is such income also exempt from taxes?

QFC - Tax Exemption Regime for the World Cup 

The QFC in its Concessionary Statement of Practice (Statement) explicitly provides that a QFC entity which is a:

• FIFA subsidiary – is exempt from Corporation tax and any other charge, levy, penalty or interest related thereto;
• FIFA Host Broadcaster or a Local Organizing Committee (LoC) Entity – is exempt from Tax ‘in relation to taxable profits that are derived from activities carried on for the purposes of the World Cup’.

The major conditions for such QFC entities to claim the exemption are as follows:

• Such QFC entities have genuine economic substance in Qatar,
• The QFC entity operates in terms of the license and upon authorization of the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (QFCRA),
• An Advanced Ruling has been applied for by the QFC entity and granted by the QFC, confirming the exempt status of such QFC entity,
• The QFC entity is included in the list provided by FIFA to the QFC Tax Department,
• The sole or main purpose of such QFC entity is not avoidance of tax,
• The QFC Tax Department is satisfied that granting the exemption is not in breach of international tax principles set out in the BEPS Project minimum standards.

The potential activities that can be developed in the QFC are limited, and therefore not all types of businesses can set up in the QFC.

No VAT – No VAT Exemption

Even though Qatar is a part of the GCC VAT Agreement and committed to implement VAT in the same vein as its neighboring countries of the UAE, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Bahrain and Oman have done, it has not yet enacted any legislation.

Therefore, there is currently no need for a VAT exemption for the World Cup. Who knows, VAT may be introduced shortly after the organization of the World Cup?

Exemptions Worth the Trouble?

Granting tax exemptions for international sporting events are sometimes controversial. The public in some hosting countries do not always believe they receive a return on investments from the event. While Qatar has spent substantial amounts of money on the construction of infrastructure, the effect of the tax exemptions is rather limited, and at least for Qatar, it seems to have been worth the investment. In any case, the exemptions are a precondition, without which a country cannot bid. After the UAE had hosted the FIFA Club World Cup a number of times, Saudi Arabia will now be looking at hosting the Asian Winter Games in 2029. Those countries have given similar tax concessions to the international organizations managing the events.

For future possible events in the UAE, it will also be interesting to see how the sporting organizations and the tax authorities will deal with the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) which is to be introduced in the UAE in June 2023. The relationship may be anything between an unbridled and full-fledged exemption (if the UAE is willing to do so), or it may lead to rather interesting tax claims (like the Formula 1 case on Permanent Establishment (PE) in India a few years ago, which was decided by the courts in the tax authority’s favor). Time alone can tell.

Almost 5 years down the line for VAT in the GCC  – what’s next?

As we approach 31 December 2022, the UAE and KSA will be celebrating 5 years of applying VAT. A rollercoaster ride for many in the region, authorities, advisers and in house tax managers.

We wrote in 2017 about the challenges of drafting VAT legislation in the GCC before its implementation (https://aurifer.tax/news/the-challenges-of-drafting-tax-legislation-and-implementing-a-vat-in-the-gcc/?lid=482&p=21).

We pondered whether the GCC was potentially going to be far ahead of other jurisdictions because of the Electronic Services System (“ESS”) the GCC VAT Agreement was going to implement, foreseen in article 71 of the Agreement (https://aurifer.tax/news/future-of-vat-in-the-eu/?lid=482&p=22). The GCC however never implemented the ESS. It is therefore missing an important instrument to integrate all GCC members under a single comprehensive regional VAT framework.

After almost 5 years, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at what occurred.

6 countries to implement, only 4 did

The GCC consists of six countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar. All countries were supposed to introduce VAT in a short span of time. The UAE and KSA did so on 1 January 2018, Bahrain on 1 January 2019, and Oman on 16 April 2021. For Qatar, rumours ebb and flow on an implementation of VAT after the World Cup, but officials are tight lipped. In terms of Kuwait, a new government is not likely to put this on the table – at least, in the near future.

The intention to implement almost simultaneously was taken with the idea of avoiding arbitrage – considering the geographical proximity between the states - and potential issues with fraud.

5% was supposed to be the rate

All 4 countries kicked off with 5% VAT, as it is foreseen in the GCC VAT Agreement as well (article 25). Saudi Arabia was the first one to hike the rate to 15% on 1 July 2020. Bahrain increased to 10% on 1 January 2022.

The increases were implemented for the same reason, as the tax was implemented for in the first place, i.e. fiscal stability. The implementation came off the back of a protracted period of running deficits for many Gulf countries. There is currently a bounce back, but how long it will take is unclear, and therefore hard to predict whether it will impact fiscal policy in the short run.

Saudi Arabia, by way of its Finance Minister, had already stated in 2021 that it would consider revising the VAT rate downwards after the pandemic. If it will happen, it will happen soon.

It’s safe to say the other GCC countries could still revise the rate upwards or downwards, depending on their specific fiscal situation.

Interestingly, the increase of the VAT rate to 15% also spawned a new tax in KSA, the Real Estate Transfer Tax (“RETT”). This new tax in KSA aimed to solve the issue of unregistered sellers, and reduce the taxes on real estate sales. Since its introduction, the RETT legislation has been amended multiple times.

The GCC countries were supposed to have numerical VAT numbers, Oman didn’t follow

In the framework of the GCC, the idea was floated to have numbers as VAT numbers. Hence, the UAE has a 1 before the number, Bahrain a 2 and Saudi a 3. Oman however choose letters and put “OM” before the number.

In the EU, VAT numbers are also composed of letters and numbers. Two letters make up the first two symbols of the VAT number and refer to a country, e.g. “LU” refers to Luxembourg (see https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/vat-identification-numbers_en).

Zero rates for services are perceived a complication

5 years in, the application to zero-rate VAT on exported services, i.e., services provided to recipients outside of the GCC, remains complicated for businesses to apply and inconsistent between the GCC member states.

Although the GCC VAT Agreement for place of supply purposes looks like the EU VAT directive, from the outset, each GCC member state chose different approaches towards the place of supply of services.

B2B services were not simply located in the country of the recipient, as they are in the EU since 2010, and as is recommended by the OECD in its VAT/GST Guidelines on B2B services.

Based on an interpretation of article 34(1)(c) of the GCC VAT Agreement as laying down the rule, and including a benefit test, GCC countries have embarked on a conservative and selective interpretation of the zero rate on supplies made from a GCC country to abroad.

That conservative interpretation is not necessarily mirrored when those services are received, as there is no benefit test required there.

The rule is therefore applied unequal, and as shown by both the UAE and KSA, they felt the rule required amendments to the provision itself (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uae-considerably-restricts-application-vat-zero-rate-services-vanhee/). Those amendments, and ensuing clarifications have not necessarily led to more clarity.

Unfortunately, Bahrain and Oman went down the same road. A too conservative view of zero rates, can put a strain on foreign investments, as it is not easy to obtain refunds for foreign businesses (as amongst others the Saudi example shows).

As a matter of fact, disputes are common among businesses in the GCC over the VAT treatment of cross-border services due to the difference in the domestic legislation between the GCC member states and in the absence of the ESS.

Divergent policy options

The GCC VAT Framework Agreement allowed for broad policy options in the education sector, health sector, real estate sector and local transport sector. In addition, for the oil & gas sector zero rates were allowed to be implemented as well, and the financial sector could benefit from a deviating regime as well. Depending on the individual requirements and policies, the GCC Member States have implemented substantially different regimes.

None of the GCC countries so far have amended those policies in the aforementioned sectors. The UAE did move from a system where the B2B sales of diamonds was taxed, to a system where it is subject to a reverse charge as from 1 June 2018.

Tax Authority approaches

So far, in the region ZATCA has shown the most grit in terms of audits, and has lengths ahead of the other countries in terms of tax audits and disputes. KSA also had the best equipped tax authority in 2018 when VAT was introduced, although it did have to go through an organizational revamp. The UAE comes second, which is remarkable for a tax authority which only kicked off in 2017. It has been very much a rules and process based organization, which has a lot of positive effects, such as tax payers feeling treated in the same way. UAE auditors now often also give the opportunity to tax payers to voluntarily disclose their liabilities before closing the audit, which is a novely approach in the region.

The Bahraini and Omani tax authority, have been taking a more relaxed approach towards audits and disputes.

Having said the above, it's all not all 'sticks' with the tax authorities. We have also observed in this 5 years, how the tax authorities, especially in KSA and the UAE, played a their role to alleviate tax from being a burden to businesses and encouraging tax compliance - a fairly new culture of this scale. The amnesty programmes, first introduced by the KSA in 2020 and again, recently paved the way on encouraging tax compliance for businesses. The UAE also introduced their amnesty programme this year with the same intention. Perhaps, this could be a temporary solution to gear the economy back on track post pandemic. On whether it will be the norm, is yet to be seen in the next coming years.

What the future will bring

An old-fashioned system was put in place, yet one that has proven its use in revenue collection. It also worked, given the substantial revenues gained from VAT.

The GCC did not opted to immediately adopt more modern, electronic systems as these exist elsewhere (e.g. since a long time in Brazil, but also China).  

However, it was identified that E-invoicing was the way to go in the medium run. This is again trodding down a proven path. As often in the GCC, the UAE and KSA show the way. KSA has made E-invoicing mandatory. The UAE and Bahrain have already suggested they will do the same very soon.

No GCC countries have yet announced they will adopt real-time reporting. KSA may be the closest to a potential adoption, given that once phase 2 enters into force in 2023, ZATCA, the KSA tax authority will have access to substantial transactional data. It will allow it to pre-fill the VAT return, and potentially even in real time calculate the VAT.

We'll see what the future will bring, and for sure in another five years matters will have evolved again drastically, given the pace of changes in the region.

Safe to say that the next 5 years will be equally exciting.

The Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently announced that the draft Corporate Tax (CT) law is going to be released soon, and likely within the month of September. This is impactful news for businesses in the UAE. Many businesses are already in the process of taking steps to plan their affairs in such a way that their operations are tax compliant and tax optimized at the same time.

The UAE’s international position will change after the implementation of corporate tax. Some jurisdictions may no longer view the UAE as a tax haven (although the Free Zone businesses may still benefit from a 0% rate). Other tax authorities may therefore change their perspective on the UAE and be more inclined to grant the benefits under the double tax treaties.

Businesses on the other hand, will no longer view the UAE as a conduit jurisdiction with an extensive treaty network, through which they can avail tax treaty benefits. While the 9% headline rate is still comparatively low, the implementation of CT may also discourage taxpayers seeking out the UAE solely for tax purposes.

A recurring point of dispute between the tax authority and businesses in almost every country having a CT regime has been drawing the line between tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Once the UAE CT regime settles, the Federal Tax Authority (FTA) of the UAE may indeed pay more attention towards countering tax avoidance and tax evasion arrangements or transactions.

In this article, we will revisit the evergreen discussion of tax planning, tax avoidance and tax evasion, with an emphasis on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). To begin, let us examine the meaning of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion and the differences between the two terms.

Tax avoidance has traditionally been considered as lawful. It can be described as planning for the purposes of minimizing the tax burden within the legal framework. Tax evasion on the other hand is considered unlawful, and often requires an intentional and a potential fraudulent element.

In the GCC, tax authorities resort rather quickly to suggesting a taxpayer has committed tax evasion, even when the situation concerns simple non-compliance.

While not considered unlawful, tax avoidance has been considered harmful. This is why countries around the world, including the GCC Member States, are implementing domestic rules to counter aggressive or harmful tax planning in line with international standards.

The OECD tried to address this point by way of the ‘Main Purpose Test’ (MPT). The MPT was included in the OECD’s Model Tax Convention in its 2003 version. We are paraphrasing, but the principle stated that benefits under a double tax treaty should not be granted where the main purpose of setting up a structure was for tax purposes as the tax benefits resulting from that structure would go counter the object and purpose of those treaties.

Another common mechanism proposed in tax treaties to avoid the improper use of tax treaties, is the ‘Beneficial Ownership’ (BO) requirement. It mainly applies to passive income (e.g., dividends, interests, and royalties). The BO concept provides that where an item of income is paid to a resident of a Contracting State acting in the capacity of an agent or a nominee, it would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the source state to grant an exemption or relief, merely because the direct recipient is a resident of the other Contracting State. In such a case, the direct recipient, on account of being merely an agent, nominee, conduit, fiduciary, or administrator, would not be able to obtain the benefits of the treaty. This is especially evident if such recipient is legally or contractually bound to pass on the payment received to another person. BO disputes often end up before the courts, because the burden of proof for the taxpayer is not easily met. 

The 2008 Financial Crisis put the discussion on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning firmly on governments’ agenda. Following the Financial Crisis, public opinion shifted towards ensuring that big corporations pay their fair share of taxes and pressured countries to implement rules to discourage such behaviors.

As a result, the OECD established what is known as the ‘Inclusive Framework’ (IF), which was open to both OECD and non-OECD members (currently at 141 members) to engage in discussions and create rules for countering Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). It is formally known as the OECD/G20 BEPS Project (BEPS Project 1.0) which identified 15 Action Points in 2015.

Out of the 15 Action Points, one of the most important action plans was BEPS Action 6 - Prevention of Tax Treaty Abuse, which also formed one of the four minimum standards. BEPS Action 6 addresses treaty shopping activities that would be viewed as avoidance.

BEPS Action 6 requires IF members, amongst others, to include an express statement in their treaties that their common intention is to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance, including through treaty shopping arrangements.

Anti-avoidance rules aim amongst others to avoid conduit arrangements. For example, State A has a domestic withholding tax rate for dividends of 25%. State A and State B have negotiated a tax treaty where the source withholding tax rate for dividends is reduced to 5%. A resident in State B receives dividends from State A and claims the reduced treaty rate of 5% source withholding.

However, the resident in State B has an obligation to redistribute the dividend income to a resident in State C. State A and State C do not have a tax treaty in place. It can be observed that there is no BO in State B due to its obligation to pass the payment onto another party. Clearly, such payment is not made for the benefit of any resident in State B nor for enhancing economic cooperation between States A and B. Instead, the benefit would be received by the resident of a third State (i.e., State C). This clearly shows that the treaty has been misused or abused by the resident of State B, against the intention, object, and purpose of the treaty between States A and B.  

To combat misuse of the treaty like the case described above, BEPS Action 6 seeks IF members to implement a ‘minimum standard’ in all its treaties. The minimum standard can be either of the following:

1. The combined approach of a Limitation of Benefits (LOB) and a Principal Purpose Test (PPT) rule,
2. The PPT rule alone, or
3. The LOB rule supplemented by a mechanism that would deal with conduit financing arrangements not already dealt with in tax treaties.

As a consequence, many IF members’ tax treaties have been updated to include, at least, a PPT rule. This is done by way of signing and ratifying the Multilateral Instrument (MLI) as it allows IF members to update multiple bilateral tax treaties simultaneously. The PPT rule looks a lot like the MPT. True to its name, if one of the principal purposes of an arrangement is to obtain a benefit, the PPT rule may be triggered. This clear intention has also been expressed in the wordings of the preamble incorporated in the OECD Model Tax Convention 2017.

Due to the lack of case law, the impact of the PPT rule is rather uncertain for now and the interpretation of the PPT rule may vary across jurisdictions. It may be possible that the cases that were successfully tested before the courts of law earlier may not survive the PPT rule if they were to be presented before the courts today, provided that the PPT rule was applicable at the time of the transaction or arrangement.

What is certain is that taxpayers ought to be very careful in tax planning so that the structures do not fall foul of the PPT rule. When deciding on the country to make an investment in or the structure of a transaction or arrangement, taxpayers ought to clearly record the non-tax reasons (main/principal purposes) for selecting a certain jurisdiction over another. Evidence can be maintained through internal emails, memos, and minutes outlining the reasons for selecting a country. For example:

• A country is preferred due to a favourable corporate law regime.
• A country is preferred due to the presence of multilingual or highly qualified employees.
• A country is preferred as it is politically and socially stable.
• A country is preferred as it has a strong banking infrastructure where it is easy to obtain credit.

Despite the above safeguards, if the tax authority does reasonably conclude that one of the principal purposes of invoking the treaty was to obtain a tax benefit, the taxpayer ought to ensure that it can establish (i.e., prove) that the benefit obtained was indeed within the object and purpose of the tax treaty.

Finally, as mentioned before, public opinion against tax avoidance is stronger than ever. The relevance of the PPT to future transactions cannot be overstated. Arrangements that may have been successfully litigated before the courts of law until a few years ago, may not be as successful from now on. Therefore, taxpayers may find advance rulings to be attractive as it is important to avoid future issues.

It will be interesting to see how the UAE and the other GCC countries will approach such abusive arrangements and its possible disputes. In the meantime, it is apparent that either through the MLI or through bilateral double tax treaties, the PPT continues to be important. It is vital to consider such anti-avoidance provisions now in order to create future proof structures.

On 18 October 2020, the Sultanate of Oman published Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 Promulgating the Value Added Tax Law. The entry into force of VAT in Oman is 180 days as of the publication of the Decree and therefore 16 April 2021. The staggered VAT registration has started on 1 February 2021 for the first batch of taxpayers in the same way it was implemented in the KSA and Bahrain. Oman will be the fourth GCC state to introduce VAT, after the UAE and the KSA on 1 January 2018, and Bahrain on 1 January 2019. Qatar is expected to be next, and Kuwait the last (if ever). Oman issued its Executive Regulations (ER) on 10 March 2021. 

Oman's VAT regime is not an original one, and it did not set out to be. It stays close to the GCC VAT Treaty and to the UAE VAT laws, but it has a few deviations. From the trained perspective of the European VAT expert, or now also to a certain extent the GCC VAT expert, there are not a lot of surprises in Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 and Tax Authority Decision No. 53/2021. We have set out below nonetheless the main characteristics of the Omani VAT legislation in a nutshell, drawing a few comparisons with the other GCC States. You can review our webinar on the topic here.

Background

Having experienced a major economic downturn with the decline of oil prices, the GCC countries have set out to introduce VAT by signing the Common VAT Agreement of the States of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) back in 2016.

Although the Sultanate, alongside Qatar and Kuwait, was procrastinating the implementation of the tax, it finally caved as a result of financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. The immense financial expenditure resulting from the pandemic combined with the major decline in oil prices over the past years, have burdened the Sultanate with an increased fiscal deficit of 17.3% of GDP and a central governmental debt of 81% of GDP (Source: IMF Mission Concluding Statement February 2021). The Sultanate has thereby chosen to undergo major public policy reforms in an effort to reinforce fiscal sustainability, starting with the implementation of VAT in April 2021 previously having expanded the scope of excise tax, and extending to the reduction of public expenditure in the long term.

If the said transformation is executed efficiently, the Sultanate will be the first GCC country to operate a comprehensive tax framework comprising of VAT, excise tax, corporate and personal income tax. However, similar to any major tax reform, some aspects are rather ambitious, and the materialization of these plans is highly dependent on a wide range of socio-political factors.

Overall design of the VAT laws

The overall design is really derived from the GCC VAT Treaty. The GCC VAT Treaty is a close carbon copy of the EU VAT directive after 2010 and before 2011. The main difference with the EU is obviously that we do not have any intra-GCC supplies. The interplay with the GCC Common Customs Law will therefore be equally complicated as it has been so far between the three GCC States which have introduced VAT.

Simply put, in Oman, VAT registered persons will charge VAT on supplies of goods and services and imports are taxed, and so are deemed supplies. Exceptions apply. Nothing new under the sun there. The Omani VAT is a European style VAT, and seems to be closer even to Europe than the other three countries so far (e.g., a VAT exemption for schools and healthcare is mandated by the EU VAT directive).

How much of the GCC VAT Treaty still carries any force is questionable, since the KSA has already deviated from it with its 15% VAT rate, none of the GCC states consider each other as Implementing States, and the UAE applies a different forward looking test (30 days instead of 12 months).

There are a great deal of other differences between the states (e.g., the UAE adding a place of supply rule for supplies of services related to goods, which is absent in the GCC Treaty), and those will remain since there is no strong policing mechanism for the Treaty, and neither is there far reaching co-operation between the states. In other words, the divergent practices we have seen in the three GCC States so far, will continue to exist and further diverge, and there is no incentive for convergence. That is regretful for businesses, but it is simply a consequence of the political design of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Implications on economy and consumption

The underlying principle of VAT is that it should not affect business decisions. While that is true to a certain extent, it does affect consumption. We expect, as we have seen in the three GCC states so far, a spike in consumption right before the introduction of VAT, and a drop right after, with a marked increase in inflation. Over time, the introduction of VAT will be absorbed into the prices. Residents tend to resort to the purchase of a few luxury items before the introduction of VAT, such as cars and jewellery.

The revenues from VAT are estimated at OMR 300m (roughly USD 780m - see https://www.arabianbusiness.com/politics-economics/450045-introduction-of-vat-to-give-omans-economy-780m-boost). The oil price for Brent Crude is 43 USD per barrel at the writing of this text. In order to balance its books, Oman budgeted in 2020 an oil price of 58 USD per barrel. It needs the oil price to be at exceed 80 USD per barrel to balance its budget (Source: IMF Middle East and Central Asia Regional Economic Outlook April 2020).

While VAT is a drop in the bucket for Oman, excise tax had also contributed to improving Oman's fiscal balance. In 2019, tax revenues were up 8% compared to the previous year, amongst others due to the introduction of excise tax. For the 2021 budget, Oman will be able to count on additional fiscal revenues from VAT.

Main provisions of the Omani VAT Law

VAT registration

In terms of the mandatory registration threshold, like in the KSA and Bahrain, and how it is foreseen in the GCC VAT Treaty, there is a forward looking test of 12 months and a backward looking one for the same period, as per Article 55 of the Omani VAT Law. Oman has therefore not chosen to follow the UAE.

The mandatory registration threshold is OMR 38,500. If a business makes sales exceeding that threshold for the last 12 months or it foresees it will in the next, it needs to register for VAT purposes.

In terms of calculating the threshold in relation to the implementation of VAT, a tax payer should calculate the backward looking test by end of October 2020. If the tax payer is above the threshold, they need to register. They need to conduct also the forward looking test. If any of the two tests pushes them over the registration threshold, they need to register.

Non-residents making taxable supplies in Oman for which the reverse charge mechanism does not apply, need to register as of the first Omani riyal of turnover in Oman. They can do so directly, or via a fiscal representative. Hopefully both regimes will be business friendly and Oman will not resort to requesting bank guarantees and the like from foreign tax payers. The OECD has recommended a simplified registration mechanism for non-residents, as putting up too many barriers for non-residents, eventually just leads to non-compliance, given that international cooperation around these issues is still very complex. Article 112, par. 1, 4 allows the OTA to determine other conditions for the fiscal representative.

VAT grouping will also be possible, with supplies between the members of the VAT group remaining outside of the scope of VAT, and its members being jointly liable for the payment of VAT. Interestingly, entities established in Oman's Special Zones are not allowed to join a VAT group and have to register individually (article 125, par. 1, 6 ER). The policy rationale behind this exclusion remains unknown, but likely has to do with the registration process in the Special Zones.

Oman recently obliged businesses to request for a tax card with the Authority, a document similar to a VAT registration certificate, and which is in use amongst others in Qatar. Given the fact that Oman has the details of tax payers already on file, they will hopefully be able to combine these in order to make the VAT registration easier for resident companies, just like in KSA.

In accordance with the guidelines published by the Omani Tax Authority, companies with a commercial registration number are required to register through the online portal. However, the residents with no CRN or non-residents are required to submit the VAT registration application in an excel sheet along with supporting documents through the email address VAT@taxoman.gov.om.

Furthermore, Oman has implemented a staggered registration similar to when VAT was introduced in KSA and Bahrain. Early registration will begin from 1 February to 15 March 2021 for taxpayers whose annual supplies exceed OMR 1 million. This decision was also followed by the publication of a VAT Transitional registration guide which assists taxpayers to calculate annual taxable supplies, help with registration via the online portal and so on. Registered taxable persons will receive a VAT Identification Number of 12 characters (OMXXXXXXXXXX).

Transactions in scope

Transactions in scope of Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 and their corresponding rules stem from the GCC VAT framework. The GCC framework sets the scope of the tax, place and date of supply rules, exemptions and zero rates. The Sultanate did not deviate from its neighbours with regards to the scope of the tax and includes deemed supplies, VAT due on import and instances where the reverse charge mechanism applies.

The place of supply rules also stem from the GCC treaty and are nearly identical to those of the other GCC countries. The place of supply of goods will be the place where the ownership of the goods is transferred. While the place of supply of services will be determined in accordance with actual consumption, with the general rule as per the treaty being the place of residence of the supplier.

A comprehensive representation of the place of supply rules is provided in Articles 20-30 of the Executive Regulations. The Regulations specifically address supply of goods with/without transportation, transportation services, real estate related services, telecommunication services and electronic services.

As aforementioned, minimal differences exist in these rules relative to the GCC treaty and the Implementing Regulations published by the other GCC states. However, further deviation from the treaty is likely to result from the tax Authorities’ interpretation and subsequent guidance as witnessed in the other states. If the nature of such guidance is similar to that of other tax Authorities, we can expect the application of these standard rules to be more complex and extensive.

Exemptions and zero rates

The distinction between exemptions and zero rates is paramount. Arabic speakers sometimes have difficulties distinguishing both, since there is no good Arabic equivalent for the terms. When a supply is exempt, no VAT applies on it, but the taxable person making the supply cannot deduct the input VAT. When a supply is zero rated, no VAT applies, but the taxable person making the supply can deduct the input VAT.

The GCC VAT Treaty requires that member states subject to the zero rate:

• medicine and medical equipment;
• cross-border transportation of goods and persons;
• export of goods to a destination outside the GCC;
• supply of goods to a customs duty suspension situation as provided for in the Common Customs Law and the supply of goods within customs duty suspension situations;
• the re-export of moveable goods that have been temporarily imported in the GCC for repairs, refurbishment, conversion or processing, as well as the services added to these goods
• supplies of services by a taxable supplier residing in a member state for a customer who does not reside in the GCC territory who benefits from the service outside the GCC territory, except where one of the special place of supply rules applies; and
• the supply of investment gold, silver and platinum, and the first supply after extraction of the same metals.

Oman implemented all of the above in Chapter 6 of the Omani VAT Law, in the process also zero rating foodstuffs via a Chairman’s Decision (this is a “may” provision in the Treaty), zero rating means of transport used for commercial transport (also a may provision in the Treaty), rescue airplanes, boats and aid by land.

In addition, it also zero rated the supply of crude oil and its oil derivatives, and natural gas (the Treaty allows for oil and gas to be either standard rated or zero rated). It is important though that both the supplier and customer are taxable, and both must be registered and licensed by the Ministry of Energy and Minerals (article 93 ER). These conditions will impact especially foreign businesses trading in these goods in Oman.

Oman also zero rates supplies of goods or services in Special Zones and subjects them to the same treatment as such treatment applicable for customs duties suspension. Oman’s VAT regime for the Special Zones is stricter than the UAE’s regime for the Designated Zones though, as it requires that the buyer is licensed by the Special Zone Authority.

The GCC VAT Treaty requires that the following supplies are subject to a VAT exemption:

• financial services;
• imports of goods if the supply of these goods is subject to a zero rate or exemption;
• import of goods exempt from customs duties;
• personal luggage and gifts brought by travellers; and
• special needs goods.

Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 implemented all of those exemptions.

The individual member state can deviate from the regime applicable to financial services provided for in the GCC VAT Treaty, foreseeing a fixed refund rate for financial institutions or apply “any other tax treatment”. Oman has adopted a regime similar to the other GCC states which taxes fee based income and exempts income based on a spread (article 79 ER). Such regime is not based on any EU regime.

It gets interesting in the sectors where member states can choose whether to subject supplies to a standard rate, zero rate or exemptions. Member states can do so in the following areas:

• education;
• real estate
• local transport; and
• healthcare.

Oman has chosen the following options, according to Article 47 of the Omani VAT Law:

• exempt health care;
• exempt education;
• exempt bare land;
• exempt the resale of residential properties;
• exempt residential lease; and
• exempt local passenger transport.

In terms of the applicable zero rates, as indicated above, Oman has opted to apply the zero rate where possible (foodstuffs, means of transport and oil and gas supplies).

Subjecting health care and education to an exemption is a first in the GCC. European VAT experts are used to this situation, since the EU VAT directive mandatorily subjects such supplies to an exemption. It will however mean that many more businesses will be a “mixed tax payer”, making both taxable and exempt supplies. The UK term for this situation is “partial exemption”, and has been in use in the region.

Oman prescribes a direct allocation, followed by a pro rata for mixed expenses (articles 58 and 59 ER).

The application of the exemption is probably the only situation in which Oman substantially differs from the other GCC states, although the KSA has made public education out of scope of VAT (with no grounds in the domestic legislation, and in violation of the neutrality principle). Arguably, this extension seems to be an effort to allow the tax to be more socially accepted and to alleviate the already onerous financial burden on Omani residents.

However, the extension also simultaneously alleviates a major problem with the interrelation of the definition of a taxable person as per the GCC Treaty with businesses providing exempt supplies. Businesses only providing exempt supplies are not required to register for VAT and hence do not fall within the definition of a taxable person. VAT incurred by these businesses is therefore non-recoverable in the GCC countries, creating an incentive to purchase services from suppliers abroad up to USD 100,000 as VAT would not be applicable in those circumstances. As the scope of the exemption is wider in the Sultanate, it provides this incentive for a wider category of businesses and thereby having a greater impact on the economy.

Interesting is also that sale of new residential property will be subject to a 5% VAT rate. As we have seen recently in the KSA, where these are now subject to a real estate transfer tax and are VAT exempt, the VAT regimes applicable to the real estate sector tend to differ from country to country.

Transactions with other GCC states

As mentioned above, the GCC States are in a VAT limbo, where they do not consider each other as implementing states and therefore consider each other as non GCC states. That means that a substantial part of the GCC VAT Treaty does not apply. Oman has not even bothered to implement the special place of supply provisions which apply between GCC member states for intra-GCC supplies.

In terms of the intra-GCC supplies, these will be subject to the same VAT regime as supplies made with third countries.

This means amongst others that supplies of goods made from Oman to another country will be subject to a zero rate, provided the conditions are met. The same thing holds for supplies of services made from Oman to a non-established customer when the service does not fall under one of the special place of supply rules. Hopefully Oman will not adopt the same very conservative position for such services as the other GCC states, and simply allow for a supply of services from Oman to a foreign customer to be zero rated, without further conditions. At this point, we only have a vague definition in article 52, 4 of the Law on exports of services, and no confirmation of the zero rate or further conditions in the ER.

Transitional provisions

As seems to have become customary upon the implementation of VAT, Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 considers for contracts which remain silent on VAT, that the price is VAT inclusive. This flags to businesses that they should amend their contracts. An amendment to a contract is not always possible and especially with clients which do not have a full right to recover input VAT (e.g., governments or financial institutions), such negotiation may prove difficult.

Trained VAT eyes would not limit the amendments in a contract to simply stating that the price is VAT exclusive, but would suggest a host of amendments meant to protect the tax payer.

For continuous supplies, Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 also states the obvious, which is that supplies which take place after the entry into force of VAT in Oman, are subject to VAT.

For supplies for which an invoice is issued or payment is received before the implementation of VAT, or before registration, and for which the supply is made after, VAT is due on the implementation or registration date.

Procedural process

The GCC VAT Treaty does not have any procedural provisions for each member state. They can therefore develop their own. Often jurisdictions then resort to what they already have, and then just apply that for VAT purposes. In the UAE and Bahrain, the legislators could not fall back on existing procedural provisions. In the KSA, the legislator could, but the procedural provisions were in dire need of reform. Those States therefore developed their own.

Oman has borrowed provisions from Oman Sultani Decree No. 23/2019 on the Promulgation of the Excise Tax, which entered into force previously. It has foreseen a strict regime, mirroring its other GCC member states. The tendency can be seen across government entities, which act in a very punitive way.

A business which deliberately does not register for VAT purposes, is punishable with one to three years imprisonment or with a fine of OMR 5,000 (approx. USD 13,000) to OMR 20,000 (approx. USD 52,000), as per Article 101 of the Omani VAT Law. The same penalties apply, amongst others, when a business deliberately refrains from reporting correct data in its tax return, or when it is found to be evading tax.

Such a very strict regime can be seen in the regime applicable to the responsible person. The person responsible for the business, is also responsible for the tax obligations. In addition, the responsible person is not allowed to leave Oman for more than 90 days a year, unless they have permission from the tax authority and appoint a replacement.

A range of penalties from OMR 1,000 (approx. USD 2,600) to OMR 10,000 (approx. USD 26,000) apply to violations such as failing to appoint the responsible person, failing to submit a tax return, issuing non-compliant invoices, and not keeping regular records, as stipulated under Article 100 of the Omani VAT Law. These penalties can be doubled for repeat offenders.

Interestingly, and perhaps a witness to the Omani accommodating nature, businesses can reach a settlement with the Omani Tax Authority. Reaching such a settlement cancels the assessment and the associated punishment.

The Omani Tax Authority also does not use the “pay first, then claim” principle the UAE uses. This means that, under the current legislation, we can expect that a relatively substantial amount of cases will be brought before the Committees.

VAT returns and invoices

Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 does not prescribe the minimum information for invoices. It defers this to the Executive Regulations in article 144. Oman will have tax invoices and simplified tax invoices, the latter being the equivalents of receipts in continental Europe. According to the FAQ's already issued by the Omani Tax Authority, a tax invoice needs to contain:

• the word “tax invoice”;
• date of issuance of the invoice;
• date of supply;
• a sequential number for the tax invoice;
• supplier name, address and VAT number;
• customer name and address, and TIN if applicable ;
• description of the goods or services;
• quantity of goods
• payment date of advance payment, if any
• total consideration, excluding tax
• applied tax rate
• price discounts, reductions and subsidies offered to customer
• taxable value, and;
• Value of the VAT due in OMR

Tax invoices in English are acceptable. However, as in UAE, the Regulations further specify that an Arabic translation may be requested by the Authority. Tax invoices and other records need to be kept for 10 years, according to Article 70 of the Omani VAT Law.

Tax invoices can be issued in a different currency, but need to be converted according to Central Bank rates. It is regretful that Oman also has not allowed for a contractual or systems override of these rates, as this puts a substantial burden on businesses.

The format of the VAT return is not known yet. Hopefully the format of the VAT return will be closer to the UAE and not the KSA and Bahrain, where the latter countries have adopted a VAT return where the VAT which is reverse charged, does not have to be reported, if the business has a full right to recover input VAT (probably a first globally!).

We do not foresee any additional reporting associated with VAT, at this point.

Way to move forward

Oman has been a sleepy tax jurisdiction up until recent years, with little reforms. Over the last few years though, we have seen the implementation of excise tax, common reporting standards, the introduction of country by country reporting and the implementation of the tax card. Before that we had the signature of the MLI as well, impacting the double tax treaties negotiated by Oman.

Although Oman already has a direct tax framework in place, applying corporate income tax at a rate of 15% and, mirroring the KSA, a set of withholding taxes, we expect the legislative framework to be subject to further reform. Additionally, the implementation of VAT alongside the expected introduction of a personal income tax in 2022 also formulates the notion that the Sultanate is on the right path to diversify its revenue stream via extensive tax reforms.

Finally, Oman is a friendly, slow paced country. The punitive provisions in Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 bring a different tone though. The consultant written provisions will unfortunately create a fear with tax payers. Tax payers from more mature jurisdictions especially are more used to a cooperative tax administration, which allows for easy corrections of mistakes and which favours correcting mistakes through voluntary disclosures. The transformation from the Secretariat General for Taxation, the old Omani tax authority, into the Oman Tax Authority, signals a major change in behaviour and approach, especially where amendments can be made by the Tax Authority itself, just as in the KSA, and do not need to pass by the cabinet (like in the UAE, for example). Changes can therefore be effected much faster and easier. The KSA for example has amended its VAT law already at four occasions in the last 2.5 years.

The next step will be the further publication of the Tax Authorities’ guidance which will display it’s interpretation of the rules and likely approach, allowing for additional comparison to be made between Oman and its neighbouring states.

Conclusion

As aforementioned, the financial constraints resulting from the pandemic has opened the eyes of the GCC countries and drove them to undergo much-needed reforms. Although the VAT initiative was identified in 2016, the unfortunate events of 2020 has pushed Oman to finally join the KSA, Bahrain and the UAE.

Despite the inevitable similarity to the GCC Treaty, Oman Sultani Decree No. 121/2020 retains some degree of autonomy and uniqueness relative to the other states. As expected, this divergence expanded following the publication of the Executive Regulations as it was the case with the other states.

With the publication of the Law and Executive Regulations, it is imperative that the Omani Tax Authority provides comprehensive and clear guidance to taxable persons in order to avoid future complications, and that these taxable persons now finalise preparations for the introduction of VAT in Oman.

The three GCC countries which have introduced VAT so far, UAE, KSA and Bahrain, have based themselves on the GCC VAT Treaty to draft their laws. The next country to do so, Oman, has done the same.

There is a special group of VAT payers, which fulfill a particular role as stakeholders in the VAT system. They sit on the fringes of the VAT system, not being a full on taxable person, and neither simply a payer, like private persons would be.

In the EU, this special group is sometimes called the “group of four”, or the “persons benefiting from a special regime”. These are the non taxable legal persons, the exempt tax payers, the small business and the farmers.

Together with the capital assets scheme, it is one of the more technical matters in VAT, and its status under GCC VAT is lacking clarification. Below, we explore the status of the non taxable legal persons. In the upcoming articles, we will be covering the other categories of special taxable persons in the GCC, which are listed below. Going forward we will refer to them as “special tax payers”.

GCC VAT and its origins

While not explicitly stated, the origin of the GCC VAT Framework (or “Common VAT Agreement of the States of the Gulf Cooperation Council” in full) lies in the EU VAT directive 2006/112/EC. More specifically it corresponds to the version applicable after 2011 and before 2013. The reasons for drawing inspiration from the EU VAT directive are obvious. The GCC had ambitions to copy the EU model. 

For example, the Economic Agreements between the GCC States of 1981 and 2001 read like the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Union.

The GCC had ambitions to form a similar trade bloc like the EU. While it indeed negotiates free trade agreements together, internally it works in a different way. It tried to establish a currency union as well, but was unsuccessful, although given that the countries have pegged their currency (relatively closely to) the US dollar, in practice they may have implemented certain elements of the monetary union. One of the more eye catching provisions of the Economic Agreements is that GCC citizens are allowed free circulation within the GCC. Such free circulation is again exactly the same principle which applies to EU citizens.

In addition to wanting to follow in the footsteps of the EU politically, there is another good reason to incorporate EU VAT provisions. The EU has the oldest VAT systems, and has the oldest VAT systems integrated in a customs union (see https://aurifer.tax/news/the-challenges-of-drafting-tax-legislation-and-implementing-a-vat-in-the-gcc/?lid=482&p=15 for a discussion on the genesis of the laws).

The copy is never better than the original

Like VHS tapes, the copy is never better than the original. This holds even more true when the copy is made from an old original. The GCC VAT Treaty does not incorporate the important changes to the EU VAT directive entered into force in 2013, 2015 and now in 2021.

At the same time, that does not necessarily need to mean that adverse consequences are triggered for the GCC States. The UAE has for example integrated the 2015 changes in its guidance and de facto applies them (see https://www.aurifer.tax/news/e-commerce-vat-rules-in-the-gcc-a-missed-opportunity-at-perfect-harmonization-with-the-eu/?lid=482). Bahrain has done the same in its guidance for the place of supply rules applicable to telecoms services.

A special group of tax payers

Like EU VAT, GCC VAT has two important main groups of stakeholders. They are the taxable persons on the hand and the private individuals on the other. The taxable persons are the businesses complying with VAT. That means they charge it, collect it and pay it to the tax authority. The private individuals are the consumers who carry the economic burden of the VAT and pay it to the businesses. They are the ones hit with the rise in cost.

Let us say that the taxable persons are “all in” and the private individuals “all out”. The private individuals (almost) have no obligation whatsoever. Although it may surprise, they have no legal obligations, except for their contractual obligations towards their contracting parties (and for imports made by private individuals).

There is another special group though. They often go by a special name even. In France, for example, they call them the persons benefiting from a special regime (“personnes beneficiant d’un regime derogatoire”). Elsewhere they may call them the “group of four”. In this article, we refer to them as the “special tax payers”.

Whether the special tax payers have VAT obligations or not, depends on their activity. The special tax payers in the EU are:

• Small businesses
• Exempt tax payers
• Non taxable legal persons (including government bodies and charities)
• Farmers and tax payers subject to a lump sum regime

Out of these four categories, the first two need to report VAT on services they receive from abroad. The last two need to report VAT on services they receive from abroad if they are already registered for VAT purposes because they have acquired goods from other EU Member States in excess of a threshold (between EUR 35,000 and EUR 100,000).

The special tax payers in the GCC are:

• Small businesses (i.e. businesses below the mandatory registration threshold)
• Exempt tax payers
• Non taxable legal persons
• Government bodies
• Charities and Public Benefit Establishments
• Companies exempt under international event hosting agreements
• Citizens constructing their own homes
• Farmers and fishermen

The taxable person concept in the GCC

The concept of taxable person in the GCC is where the GCC deviates from more mature VAT systems. In the EU, a taxable person is “any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity”. Economic activity is then “Any activity of producers, traders or persons supplying services, including mining and agricultural activities and activities of the professions…”.

Although at first sight only subtly different, a taxable person in the GCC is “A Person conducting an Economic Activity independently for the purpose of generating income, who is registered or obligated to registered”. The last bit of the phrase is crucial.

In the EU, the registration is a consequence of the fact that an economic activity is conducted, it is not a defining element of it. Note also that it is a global concept in the EU, i.e. anyone in the world can be a taxable person. In the GCC, anyone in the world can conduct an economic activity, a subtle difference.

As a comparison, the GCC inspired itself on the UK definition of a taxable person, which is “A person is a taxable person for the purposes of this Act while he is, or is required to be, registered under this Act.”

VAT registration requirements

A Person is required to register for VAT purposes when resident in a Member State and making annual supplies in that State above the Mandatory registration threshold of SAR 375,000 (USD 100,000 or its equivalent in local currency). Non resident businesses making taxable supplies in a Member State need to be registered as from the first cents made.

A person can voluntarily register when resident in a Member State and making annual supplies in that State above the Voluntary registration threshold of SAR 187,500 (USD 50,000 or its equivalent in local currency), or incurring taxable expenses for the same value.

The GCC Member States have not deviated from this principle yet, although the UAE has set the forward looking threshold for the next 30 days instead of the next year (mimicking the UK).

Calculating the thresholds

According to the GCC VAT Treaty, and the Omani VAT law, in order to calculate the threshold, the following elements need to be included:

• The value of taxable supplies, except for capital assets (category 1)
• Value of goods and services supplied to the Taxable Person who is obliged to pay Tax (category 2)
• The value of intra-GCC supplies which have a place of supply in another State but would have been taxable had they taken place in the State of residence (category 3)

The third category is not applicable right now, as none of the GCC Member States recognize each other as Implementing States.

The first category is straightforward, the second is much less so. The second category has been implemented in the UAE to take only into account imports of goods and services. In KSA, the receipt of reverse charged purchases are taken into account (which may include goods which are already in KSA when supplied by a non-resident and therefore not imported, contrary to the UAE). KSA and Bahrain also include deemed supplies in the calculation.

The second category mentions that the recipient must be a Taxable Person. It may be a Circular reasoning, since a business may not be a Taxable Person, but as a result of purchasing from abroad may become a Taxable Person and therefore may be required to register.

The first group of Special Tax Payers - the Non Taxable Legal Persons

In this series of articles, we will be covering the special tax payers in the GCC listed above, and their VAT obligations. We start with the Non Taxable Legal Persons.

This group of special tax payers is not explicitly mentioned in any of the GCC legislations so far. Its category is created following the application of the concepts of VAT law. 

It is possible that a legal entity, such as, but not limited to, LLC’s, PJSC’s, … is simply not in scope of VAT. Even though a company is usually set up to conduct business, in a number of a cases, it might not actually be conducting business from a VAT perspective. Such an entity would not constitute a taxable person.

There are a number of other situations as well though, where legal entities are in business but are not making supplies in the material scope of VAT (we are not covering supplies which are in the material scope of VAT but outside the GCC based on the place of supply rules).

Conducting an economic activity, or its colloquial term, being in business, is defined as “An activity that is conducted in an ongoing and regular manner including commercial, industrial, agricultural or professional activities or services or any use of material and immaterial property and any similar activity”.

The definition of economic activity is as broad as possible, and intended to encompass a maximum number of situations. It generally includes all types of commercial activities.

In regards to non-taxable legal persons, we therefore distinguish:

• passive legal persons
• legal persons in business but making material out of scope supplies

We discuss these in further detail below.

Passive legal persons and legal persons not in business

The first category could be described as passive legal persons. Although they are a legal entity and therefore potentially (or presumably) set up to conduct business, they do not do so. An example is a holding company, such as JAFZA offshore companies which are set up simply to hold shares or an asset (see https://www.aurifer.tax/news/more-often-than-not-jafza-offshores-need-to-register-for-vat/?lid=482&p=12 for a discussion on the matter). Another such an example is a charity not conducting business, a dormant company, or an entity only receiving subsidies.

Given the fact that they are not in business (not conducting an economic activity), they cannot qualify as a taxable person and therefore, they remain outside of the remit of the scope of VAT. 

This means that they are the equivalent of a final consumer, i.e. they pay the burden of VAT since they cannot recover any input VAT. Domestic input VAT incurred in the GCC is not deductible, and, importantly, they are not required to apply the reverse charge mechanism on any services they receive from abroad. 

In regards to import VAT, they are considered the equivalent of a consumer (but cannot benefit from certain import exemptions). For imports of goods by non-registered persons, the UAE’s FTA has stated that the payment of VAT needs to be made directly to the FTA, separately from the payment of customs duties. Alternatively, a non-registered person can use a courier company, with the latter unable to recover the import VAT.

Note that this is different in the EU, where this type of entities would have the obligation to pay VAT on services received from abroad, when it is already registered for VAT purposes, for example because it made intra-community acquisitions of goods from other EU Member States. Such a registration is an obligation, even if the entity does not make any other taxable supplies, but makes purchases from other EU Member States.

Legal persons in business but having materially out of scope income

A company could be conducting an economic activity, but not be making taxable supplies. An example is a business making investments in futures (although the UAE considers these exempt from VAT), recording unrealized capital gains, recording an appreciation of the value of a portfolio, or collecting dues from borrowers after purchasing a non performing loan portfolio. 

The question then begs what the VAT status is of such non taxable legal persons, if it is in business but not making taxable supplies.

When such an entity is conducting an economic activity, in order to calculate the registration threshold, this category would not have any income which counts towards taxable supplies (category 1 above).

However, one also needs to count the value of category 2. As mentioned above, there is some divergence between the approaches in the GCC States. Oman and Bahrain follow the GCC VAT Treaty, taking into accounts goods and services supplied to a Taxable Person who is obligated to pay VAT, whereas KSA takes into account the receipt of goods and services, and UAE only the “imports” of goods and services by Persons.

KSA confirmed its stance, and requires foreign businesses making supplies to non taxable persons (note it does not say “legal persons”) to register “where appropriate”. Presumably, GAZT means situations where the place of supply rules designate KSA as the appropriate jurisdiction to levy tax. GAZT confirms that if the recipient is carrying out an economic activity and the recipient is not registered for VAT purposes, the receipt of services will count towards the mandatory registration threshold.

In short, this category of legal persons, when it conducts an economic activity, needs to register for VAT purposes when it exceeds the registration threshold based on expenses or imports. It will then need to apply the reverse charge mechanism on services received from abroad, and be unable to recover that VAT.

With increasing globalization and the ease of conducting international financial transactions, the G20 countries requested the OECD to develop a transparent system that would allow jurisdictions to combat off-shore tax evasion and non-compliance effectively. Although exchange of information was not a foreign concept, CRS is one example of an international evolution towards automatic exchange of information (AEOI) based on pre-defined formats. Another such an example is country by country reporting.

Drawing inspiration from the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in the USA, the OECD Council approved the Common Reporting Standards ("CRS") in 2014, enabling the automatic exchange of financial information between jurisdictions.

How does it work? 

A Financial Institution (e.g. a bank) in jurisdiction A collects select information and reports it to its local competent authority. Based on this information, the local competent authority of jurisdiction A will exchange the account information of persons who are tax resident in a different jurisdiction (e.g. jurisdiction B). This information will be exchanged directly with the competent authority of the jurisdiction B on an annual basis and it will include the following information:

1. Name, address, TIN, date and place of birth of the Reportable Person
2. Account number
3. Name and identifying number of the Reporting Financial Institution 
4. The balance of the account at the end of the relevant calendar year
5. Gains from sale of financial assets, if any.

Upon the receipt of the above information, the tax authority of the jurisdiction B will determine whether the taxpayer discloses his income accurately and if sufficient tax is paid. This process ensures that the taxpayer fairly discloses his income in jurisdiction B and jurisdiction B rightfully receives tax that is due from the taxpayer.

Legal instruments 

A country implementing CRS adopts certain legal instruments. It includes the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on Automatic Exchange of Financial Information ("MCAA") and the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters ("MAC"). 

The MCAA includes the rules of exchange of information between foreign jurisdictions and also provides the infrastructure to safeguard confidential information being exchanged. As on 25 November 2020, 105 countries are signatories of the MCAA with the first exchange of information having started in September 2017.

CRS in the UAE

The UAE has opted for the widest approach for CRS and the UAE Ministry of Finance ("UAE MoF") acts as the Competent Authority in charge of CRS implementation and ultimately enables the exchange of information with foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, it has ratified both the MCAA and MAC in 2018. 

The UAE has appointed multiple Regulatory Authorities for implementing CRS in the UAE, these authorities are:

1. The UAE Central Bank
2. The Securities & Commodities Authority
3. The Insurance Authority 
4. Financial Free Zone Authorities such as ADGM and DIFC.
5. The Ministry of Finance

With the recent merger of the Insurance Authority with the UAE Central bank, the UAE may have at least five sets of Regulations for CRS purposes.

The first exchange of information between the UAE MoF and the participating reportable jurisdictions with UAE has taken place on 30 September 2018. The USA is excluded from the CRS as, as mentioned above, it adopted its own set of legislation.

Impact on Financial Institutions 

Financial institutions hold a fundamental role in the effective implementation of CRS in the country. They are intermediaries through which the regulatory authorities collect information required for exchange of information purposes.

Reportable Financial Institutions include Custodial, Depository, Investment and Insurance Institutions. 

In order to determine whether a pre-existing or new account is a Reportable Account, the Financial Institutions are required to put due diligence measures in place and collect relevant information from their clients (e.g. tax residency, TIN). These due diligence measures can be incorporated into existing AML measures, KYC policies, or by obtaining and validating self-certifications from account holders.

If an Account holder is a Passive Non-Financial Entities ("Passive NFE”), the Financial Institution must also identify the identity of the natural person(s) who exercise control of the legal person via a controlling ownership. The Financial Action Task Force (‘FATF’) recommendation determines that controlling ownership interest can be based on a threshold, for example, a natural person owning more than 25% of the legal entity would be identified as the Controlling Person. If no person can be determined through ownership, Financial Institutions must also determine if a person exerts control over the legal entity through other means.

Another aspect that Financial Institutions have to consider is OECD's analysis of high-risk CBI/RBI schemes when completing due diligence procedures. Citizen by Investment (‘CBI’) or Resident by Investment (‘RBI’) schemes allow individuals to obtain citizenship or resident status by making local investments. The OECD has established a list of countries that offer such schemes which includes the UAE and Bahrain.

Additionally, financial institutions are required to submit an annual report (by 30th June in the UAE) to their regulatory authorities describing the due diligence procedures in place, the number of reportable accounts, the amounts within these accounts (in USD), and other information. 

Due to their important roles in the information collection processes, Financial Institutions may incur heavy compliance costs and spend more time on validation and reporting. 

The UAE Cabinet recently published Cabinet Resolution No. 5/11 of 2020 Session No. (11) which imposes a penalty of AED 1,000 on any financial institution that opens a new account without obtaining a valid self-certification or for failing to validate such self-certification. 

In recent times, the UAE has taken a stricter approach towards compliance, on the one hand reinforcing the penalty framework, and on the other hand enforcing stricter compliance on financial institutions.

Impact on account holders 

New and/or pre-existing account holders are requested to provide a self-certification which contains information of the individual's name, place of birth and jurisdictions the customer is tax resident.

Entities have to provide a more comprehensive self-certification form with special emphasis on entities that are Passive NFEs (which helps identify Controlling Persons).

It is crucial for individuals to determine and inform their tax residency in the self-declaration form as in principle, the financial institutions are not permitted to assist the individual in this process. 

The UAE has recently expanded the definition for being a tax residence in the UAE. In case of new individuals accounts, documentary evidence of a valid UAE residence visa must be available. 

Enhanced Due Diligence procedures will be carried out by the respective Financial Institution for account holders with a valid residency visa of more than 5 years and if the Financial Institution cannot validate the self-certification provided by this individual.

To discourage account holders from providing inaccurate or insufficient self-certifications, a fine amounting to AED 20,000 may be imposed on the account holder (or the controlling person).

Pitfalls

Despite the clear Common Reporting Standards, certain structures may still lead to non reporting of financial accounts. In addition, the tax residency criteria may differ from one jurisdiction to another, and unlike for international tax, there are no treaties providing tie breaker rules. This means amongst others that persons can have dual residences, and that for example a person who has acquired residency (or citizenship) by investment could be considered as a resident in the country of investment, whereas he is actually a tax resident in another country.

The UAE however, has recently updated its tax residency definition to to take into account these RBI/CBI schemes. 

Despite the rules becoming stricter and the enforcement more intense, there are still a number of service providers which propose structures to avoid CRS reporting which will ultimately not reach their goal. 

Ultimately, much confidence is placed in the due diligence process with the banks. Compliance is not always straightforward for financial institutions, who depend on the information disclosed to them and might not have much additional information to compare with. Amending submitted reports is also not an easy process.

Errors in CRS reporting may lead to incorrect exchange of information and affect account holders in the long run. A convenient and lenient correction process can encourage Financial Institutions to disclose errors without the fear of facing penalties.

Ultimately, the stricter enforcement of CRS is another step towards transparency taken by the UAE and individuals and businesses need to analyze their structures from this point of view, even more so today than when CRS was introduced in the UAE.

Photo by Call Me Fred on Unsplash